Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Germany’s Nuclear Conundrum

It takes some amount of bravery to admit you need what you do not like and you will suffer it for as long as you need to:

The lifespan of Germany's nuclear power plants must be extended "modestly" in order to gradually reach the country's goal of having renewable energy as its main source of energy, German Vice-chancellor and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Wednesday.

In 2008 the gross electric power generation in Germany totaled 639 billion kWh. A major proportion of the electricity supply is based on lignite (23.5 %), nuclear energy (23.3 %) and hard coal (20.1 %). Natural gas has a share of 13 %. Renewables (wind, water, biomass) account for 15.1 %.

These numbers are – not attractive – if the goal is to shut off 23 percent of the clean air electricity produced in the country when nearly 44 percent – 57 percent when you add in natural gas – emit impressive amounts of carbon dioxide – the displacement of which is the point behind increasing the use of renewables. Using renewable energy as a stalking horse for nuclear energy seems – a bit – verrückt.

---

It may evoke a little deja vu to learn that Germany is having some trouble coming up with an energy plan that gets it where it wants to go.

Time will soon run out for Germany to build up enough power generation if politicians continue dragging their feet on decisions over the fuel mix, German state energy agency Dena said on Monday.

Oh, really, and why is that?

"Power markets will feel insecure," he [Dena managing director Stephan Kohler] said in an interview on the sidelines of a Focus magazine conference on power plants.

"There will be no new jobs and the power supply security of the coming years will be impaired."

And why might that be?

Dena forecasts that Germany may be short some 14,000 to 16,000 megawatt of generation capacity if nuclear laws phase out reactors by 2021 as now planned and new projects for coal or gas plants fail to materialize due to public opposition.

In other words, baseload energy. That’s where renewables cannot get you and Germany hasn’t quite figured out how to square this particular circle. Add to the circle squaring exercise a public that wants elements that do not comprise a coherent energy array – not the public’s fault; politicians need to explain this – and you get an intractable conundrum.

I’ve no doubt it’ll work itself out – and only a little doubt that nuclear energy will have a significant role to play.

Germany’s Iser nuclear plant.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Labels

Comments

donb said…

If you want to figure out how to square the circle, just follow the money. Renewables are expensive, especially solar in Germany. The money to subsidize renewables needs to come from somewhere, and one of those "somewheres" is the nuclear plants. The political types want to tax the nuclear plants to provide the subsidies, so they can present themselves as virtuous by supporting (expensive) renewables. Most any source of money will win at least grudging support.

The situation is much worse than even this article makes it seem. I don't know the percentage but typically most of what is called 'renewables' is from hydro. If you take that out then renewables look a lot worse. And, usually there is not much more hydro to add, all the dams are built.

One possible solution will be to build the NPP in France and big power lines across the Rhine. The French need the money to afford buying German stuff, and the Germans have the money... E.ON already expressed its interest for building NPP in the French territory.Germany will have much bigger bang for the buck investing in NPP in France than investing in Natural Gas infrastructure in Russia.

Germany has no serious efforts to phase out coal either, on the contrary. According to this document from McCloskey’s Coal Report, December 2007, there is 20,000 MGW of new coal power under construction in Germany.

20,000 MW. Thats about the same as the NPP fleet in Germany. What a coincidence!

So, they're trying to reduce CO2 and other emissions by shutting down emissions-free generation (nuclear) and replacing it with emissions-rich generation (coal)? There is only one word for that: dummeraisel.

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.